I am probably completely wrong about this, but isn't there some programmed logic to the hiring process that is intentionally kept from the coaches. For example, while school A and school B are both d- prestige, school A may want a coach that has been in his current job for, say, 15 seasons. School B might not be interested in coaching duration, but would rather a coach that recently made a NT run (not two consecutive first round exits).

I don't mean that last part as a shot at you colonels, you had a great season last year and sometimes first round losses happen. I just added it because of its relevance in this particular case.

My impression is that everything that is expressed as a letter in HD is in fact a number - a number expressed to some unspecified number of decimal places.

ratings and the like that are expressed as a number are in fact rounded representations of an underlying number expressed to an unspecified number of decimal places.

This is why, there are gradations within any letter grade - prestige, FT ability, etc.

This is why a good season or a draft pick may not change a prestige letter grade - even though it almost surely changes the (say) 5 decimal place underlying number

This is why one can see some odd behavior in terms of potential - a guy goes from blue to black with no change in his rated number. In fact, he went from 33.12345 to 33.54321 while his potential was, say 53.22222 - so that his rating stayed at 33 but he goes from blue to black.

If one accepts the idea of numbers beneath the letters, there MAY be logical explanations for the gradations you observe. Admin has in a number of chats etc over the years referred to numbers beneath the letters.

I don't get the big deal of seeing this underlying number or not. What are you going to do differently, try a little harder? Let's leave a little bit of real life feel here. Whether you see the number or not, you still wouldn't have reached it. Then next season the number is going to be different so there was really no point in seeing the last number other than to quantify for your own QQing how many fractions of a "point" you missed qualifying by. It all seems pointless to me.

Posted by stinenavy on 6/26/2013 3:31:00 PM (view original):More whining from colonels. Figures. If you had more success in the NT you wouldn't feel the need to complain about what D- teams you are qualified for.

If this isn't someone's worthless two cents...

Despite colonel's frustration and your issue of him expressing his thoughts, it does bring a decent question, why are ratings for Ath to Dur numbers, but FT, Prestige, IQ letter grades. I would rather know that my FT shooter is say a 70, etc than A, B, C...

For FT, I get it. They want some uncertainty there. Showing a number on a scale of 100 would essentially display an expected FT%. That's no fun, and there would be a thousand times the whining when a player underperforms.

Posted by llamanunts on 6/26/2013 6:08:00 PM (view original):For FT, I get it. They want some uncertainty there. Showing a number on a scale of 100 would essentially display an expected FT%. That's no fun, and there would be a thousand times the whining when a player underperforms.

It's the same for prestige. For anyone paying attention, it's usually pretty obvious who is going to win a battle. Why give us even more info?

Again, my point is, is that it doesn't add up. I'm a "longshot" for 2 D prestige schools, yet there are D- schools that I'm "not qualified" for in the same conference where I am "qualified" and "longshot" for D- schools (WCC for those who didn't see it). It just seems to be a bit of a random mish-mash to be honest. It's time consuming enough to get to D1 and then to have to deal with practices that further discourage the process is just bad for the game. I think I should be "qualified" for all D- programs, and that's not even asking that much, especially with how empty the lesser D1 conferences are in the 2-a-day worlds. There are about 10 D1 teams in Knight that have NEVER had a human coach in 61 seasons. I'm not saying go completely overboard, but I think looser restrictions would lead to more participation...hell there was a guy out there looking for an unused, D1 qualified ID for cripe sakes.

I find it funny that WIS would rather try to protect some kind of covenant that doesn't exist over revenue and better competition (Human > Sim AI).

I guess that's all that needs to be said...I can see one and done-ing at D1 here...not a threat, just thinking/feeling out loud.

Posted by stinenavy on 6/26/2013 3:31:00 PM (view original):More whining from colonels. Figures. If you had more success in the NT you wouldn't feel the need to complain about what D- teams you are qualified for.

The problem with you is that you haven't the mental capacity to see HD from a business point of view, so the last thing I'm going to do is even attempt to listen to someone whose main goal is to remove paying customers from the game. Go row your boat somewhere, Gilligan...

colonels: You're making two claims here. The first claim is that it's absurd to be qualified for some D- and not for others. This, I think, is false, as it's a well-known fact that not all D- are created equal (I even knew it, and I've been around less than a year), and it's not unlike FT shooting, as some have mentioned. Your second is that in order to grow the game, the restrictions to coach in D1 should be looser, and you currently should qualify. To that, I really can't speak much, but we have had our share of threads recently about what it takes to get to D1 (I do remember patsrule asking recently), so we've no shortage of opinions

It's programmed in for some schools to have different expectations of coaches than others. For example, I'm pretty sure you need A+ rep and loyalty (instead of just A) to move to Ivy league schools. I have a B- rep right now and I'm not qualified for ANY D1 jobs except for Georgia and Fresno State, which means those two schools clearly have a lower reputation threshold. I think it's pretty cool that each school is somewhat customized. I'm sure that also plays a role in which schools you are qualified for or not, colonels.

Also, I do agree that it should be slightly easier to get to the lowest D1 schools and I think that change will come soon when seble overhauls the job process, which, from what I've read from him, is at least on the list of things to get done at some point (when WIS can actually devote some time to HD).

Posted by tarvolon on 6/26/2013 7:36:00 PM (view original):colonels: You're making two claims here. The first claim is that it's absurd to be qualified for some D- and not for others. This, I think, is false, as it's a well-known fact that not all D- are created equal (I even knew it, and I've been around less than a year), and it's not unlike FT shooting, as some have mentioned. Your second is that in order to grow the game, the restrictions to coach in D1 should be looser, and you currently should qualify. To that, I really can't speak much, but we have had our share of threads recently about what it takes to get to D1 (I do remember patsrule asking recently), so we've no shortage of opinions

The first point kind of ties into the second one, and I think what I'm pushing for is quite fair. All I'm asking is for those who have qualified for D1 to be "qualified" for all D- jobs. With the policies as they are, WIS would rather have someone quit HD than have them be eligible for a D- job, that very well could be a dream job for said coach...that's just bad business if you ask me. I like coaching teams that have never had a human coach, and I'm not "qualified" to coach any of them, so I very well could be gone after this season in Knight. What a ridiculous reason to lose out on revenue.

Posted by tarvolon on 6/26/2013 7:36:00 PM (view original):colonels: You're making two claims here. The first claim is that it's absurd to be qualified for some D- and not for others. This, I think, is false, as it's a well-known fact that not all D- are created equal (I even knew it, and I've been around less than a year), and it's not unlike FT shooting, as some have mentioned. Your second is that in order to grow the game, the restrictions to coach in D1 should be looser, and you currently should qualify. To that, I really can't speak much, but we have had our share of threads recently about what it takes to get to D1 (I do remember patsrule asking recently), so we've no shortage of opinions

The first point kind of ties into the second one, and I think what I'm pushing for is quite fair. All I'm asking is for those who have qualified for D1 to be "qualified" for all D- jobs. With the policies as they are, WIS would rather have someone quit HD than have them be eligible for a D- job, that very well could be a dream job for said coach...that's just bad business if you ask me. I like coaching teams that have never had a human coach, and I'm not "qualified" to coach any of them, so I very well could be gone after this season in Knight. What a ridiculous reason to lose out on revenue.

I would like coaching any number of D1 schools, but I'm not qualified for any of them because I haven't done enough yet. If you think that the threshold you've reached should be the threshold for 40-50 schools instead of 4-5 (I haven't counted the D- schools, but you get the idea), that seems to me not necessarily tied to whether we have gradations within D-